Direct Request (CEACR) - adopted 2000, published 89th ILC session (2001)

The Committee notes the information provided by the Government in its report and the attached documentation.

1.  With regard to wage differentials, the Committee notes the information included in the Government’s report, indicating that women receive lower wages than men overall and that, in some instances, the wage gap is quite wide. In this respect, it notes that studies conducted by municipal bodies confirm the existence of wage differentials of 10 per cent to 16 per cent between men and women workers; data from the National Economics Institute, calculated on the basis of tax returns, indicate that on average women’s employment earnings for 1998 were 52.8 per cent of men’s earnings; statistical data from the Institute of Labour Market Research for 1998-99 indicate that in all cases women receive lower wages than men for daytime work (71.4 per cent to 97.4 per cent). The Committee notes further that wage differences also exist in collective agreements, for example, there is a differential of approximately 10 per cent for women paid according to the collective agreements of the Confederation of State and Municipal Employees (BSRB). It asks the Government to provide information on measures aimed at eliminating the wage difference between women and men, including workers covered by collective agreements, and to continue to provide statistical information to allow the Committee to assess fully the extent and nature of the pay differentials and the progress achieved in implementing the principle of the Convention.

2.  The Committee notes the information on the project on occupational assessments using gender-neutral job ranking. The project, aimed at investigating job evaluation as a useful tool for reducing wage differentials between women and men, has concluded and has issued a report in 1998. The Committee notes that the report addresses the limitations inherent in job evaluation. The report considers that job evaluation is based on the assumption that it is possible to compare men’s and women’s traditional jobs in order to determine whether they are of equal value. It concludes that job evaluation techniques are not useful tools with which to address the pay gap in sex segregated or single sex-dominated fields of activity. The report concludes that job evaluation is an extensive and complicated undertaking, which can never be a universally valid and correct yardstick for establishing the value of jobs. However, it constitutes an important attempt to coordinate decisions on wages, to make them clearer by evaluating all jobs in a systematic manner, and to control subjectivity in evaluating the content and value of jobs. The Committee asks the Government to keep it informed as to any measures taken to implement the findings and recommendations of the report and on any future job assessment exercises for the private sector. The Committee also observes that the new Equality Act is applicable only to men and women employed by the same employer (section 14). It has frequently drawn attention to the need to conduct job evaluation more broadly, including evaluating jobs in different areas of employment. The Committee asks the Government to indicate the measures taken to address the pay gap beyond the enterprise level.

3.  The Committee notes the information in the report, indicating the intention of the Government and the main civil servants’ trade unions to address wage differentials between women and men. It notes that, to this end, a survey is to be carried out on the new wage system, and the Civil Servants’ Wage Investigation Committee is to compile and publish regularly information on wages disaggregated by sex, institutions and occupations. The Committee asks the Government to provide further information on concrete measures taken as a result of the above activities, and to provide copies of the survey and the Wage Investigation Committee’s reports with its next report.

4.  With regard to its previous comment that some of the factors identified as causing gender-based wage differentials were related to the concentration of women in part-time posts and in lower income and lower status jobs, and its comment on the value of awareness-raising programmes and other educational activities, aimed at promoting equal opportunity and treatment for men and women in the labour market, the Committee notes that the Equal Status Conferences have been discontinued. Noting the new institutional structure for equality issues created under the new Act, it asks the Government to provide information in its next report on measures taken to promote equal opportunity and treatment for men and women and to reduce wage differentials by expanding the range of educational and occupational choices for boys and girls.

5.  The Committee notes the information on the work of the Complaints Committee on Equal Status in wage discrimination cases. In this respect it notes that in 1998, 18.2 per cent of the total complaints received by the Committee concerned wage discrimination, with most complaints being brought by women, and 27.3 per cent of the complaints were brought in 1999. The Committee also notes that a complaint regarding automobile allowances paid to women and men in three state-owned banks was investigated by the Complaints Committee. The Committee also notes the Supreme Court decision in Case No. 11/200 of 31 May 2000, on the interpretation of the Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights for Women and Men on equal wages for work of equal value. The Supreme Court held that, when comparing jobs, it is necessary to base the decision on a comprehensive evaluation and jobs may be comparable in terms of equal value even though they differ in individual respects. The Committee asks the Government to continue to provide information on any court decisions relevant to the application of the principles of the Convention, including the work of the Complaints Committee on Equal Status.